The U.S. was not founded as a Christian nation.

[kai]

Yes, they would because that is the legal date.
"The Year of our Lord" is English for Anno Domine, which is Latin.
Would you have them use rhe Mosaic Date, or perhaps the Qur'anic calendar? That would be approximately 1200 AH (After the Hejira).

Using a standard calendar make it much easier than naming the years like "The Year he Sprinhg Rains Came Early, or using the Japanese system which began new with each Emperor.

As an aside the famous world war two Japanese Mitsubishi naval fighter aircraft the 'Zero' is called that because the call for designs and bids for the aircraft came out in the first year of the reign of Hirohito. Now that's really confusing.

Regards,
Scott

yeah i get all that , that was the conventional way of writing the date in an english speaking christian country.

 

[Scuba Pete]

i dont know really i was just reading it .

A legal convention in christian countries,in a secular document? i just find it puzzling, the Lord in question is Jesus right? with hindsight maybe they should have left that bit out.

if you were to say, find that document and knew nothing of it,that sentence alone would give you the impression that it concerned a christian country.

I am sure you are familiar with the terms AD (Anno Domini) BC (Before Christ). This convention has been around a while and is used by theists and atheists alike. The use of the phrase "Year of our Lord" is the translated long hand for AD.

 

[kai]

I am sure you are familiar with the terms AD (Anno Domini) BC (Before Christ). This convention has been around a while and is used by theists and atheists alike. The use of the phrase "Year of our Lord" is the translated long hand for AD.

yeah,yeah i got it , it just seems odd , to sit down draft a constitution for a new secular country then use the phrase "in the year of our lord" it seems to have a little more meaning to it than "AD" dont you think. you would think the would have left it out altogether.

 

[Popeyesays]

yeah i get all that , that was the conventional way of writing the date in an english speaking christian country.

They wrote the date out in letters, to be stylistically consistent they did the same thing with "A.D."

Regards,

Scott

 

[kai]

They wrote the date out in letters, to be stylistically consistent they did the same thing with "A.D."

Regards,

Scott

ok, but why write the constitution for a new secular country and then write "in the year of our lord " which is plainly christian. just seems odd, but OK i will concede it may just be convention.

 

[Scuba Pete]

yeah,yeah i got it , it just seems odd , to sit down draft a constitution for a new secular country then use the phrase "in the year of our lord" it seems to have a little more meaning to it than "AD" dont you think. you would think the would have left it out altogether.

I don't think they were as sensitive to that as you seem to be. Go figure.

 

[Scuba Pete]

BTW, there is a movement to now use "CE" which stands for the "Common Era", though some anti-PCers say it means the "Christian Era".

 

[Popeyesays]

ok, but why write the constitution for a new secular country and then write "in the year of our lord " which is plainly christian. just seems odd, but OK i will concede it may just be convention.

It's a contract, you know, between the people and the government.

Contracts without dates are null and void.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Scuba Pete]

Contracts without dates are null and void.

Frubals on your head! SP Really, really!

 

[McBell]

Contracts without dates are null and void.

Really?
What about:

Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​

When were dates REQUIRED for a contract to not be void?

 

[Popeyesays]

Really?

What about:

Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

When were dates REQUIRED for a contract to not be void?

"As to consideration, the Court of Appeal held that there was consideration on two grounds. The first was the benefit that the defendants gained as a result of the use of the smoke ball in response to the advertisements and the sales produced thereby. The second was that the use by Mrs Carlill of the smoke ball three times daily for two weeks constituted a detriment so that she had provided consideration for the defendants' promise.".
The date was not an issue in the case.
"As to consideration, the Court of Appeal held that there was consideration on two grounds. The first was the benefit that the defendants gained as a result of the use of the smoke ball in response to the advertisements and the sales produced thereby. The second was that the use by Mrs Carlill of the smoke ball three times daily for two weeks constituted a detriment so that she had provided consideration for the defendants' promise."

Regards,
Scott

 

[McBell]

"As to consideration, the Court of Appeal held that there was consideration on two grounds. The first was the benefit that the defendants gained as a result of the use of the smoke ball in response to the advertisements and the sales produced thereby. The second was that the use by Mrs Carlill of the smoke ball three times daily for two weeks constituted a detriment so that she had provided consideration for the defendants' promise.".
The date was not an issue in the case.
"As to consideration, the Court of Appeal held that there was consideration on two grounds. The first was the benefit that the defendants gained as a result of the use of the smoke ball in response to the advertisements and the sales produced thereby. The second was that the use by Mrs Carlill of the smoke ball three times daily for two weeks constituted a detriment so that she had provided consideration for the defendants' promise."

Regards,
Scott

Where was the date on the contract?
There wasn't one.
Yet if what you claim is true, that without a date the contract is null and void, then this could not have been a breech of contract.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Two different areas of law here: truth in advertisement and contract law.

BTW, most advertisements have a "published" date.

 

[McBell]

Two different areas of law here: truth in advertisement and contract law.

BTW, most advertisements have a "published" date.

I am not denying that in some cases no date on the contract does cause it be null and void.
However, i do recognize that a date is not a requirement on every contract.

The case I presented is one of the examples used in class to point this out.

 

[Popeyesays]

Where was the date on the contract?
There wasn't one.
Yet if what you claim is true, that without a date the contract is null and void, then this could not have been a breech of contract.

The date is the publication date, which is displayed above word "Smopke" in the headline of the ad. The exmp[le on Wikipedia is sadly pixelated.
But one should note that the publication date is the initiation of the contract, and the bankruptcy court appointed banbkruptcy the company is the effective end date of the contract.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Sententia]

wow! i just waded through 254 posts and i still dont know if America was founded as a christian nation or not, i thought you guys had it all written down?

The country was defined as a secular nation with freedom of any religion. If you don't get that you didn't read or unable to read and are parroting other peoples logic.

You have just as much right to be christian, jew, atheist, agnostic, amish or anything you want to be. This is america, land of the free. And you are free. When people impose their will upon you or make laws that limit your ability to be free they are simply unamerican and it is the duty of the citizen to fight for and keep everyone in america free.

This country was not founded AS a christian nation and with good reason and to the credit of the character of our forefathers considering the religious environment.

Not a christian nation.

If you look back I have quoted an article on a nation of christians does not a christian nation make... and a few other pointed by accurate observations. There are actually many people in this thread who have stated it.

Sorry you missed it.

But the US was NOT supposed to be a CHRISTIAN nations. It was supposed to be the Land of the FREE.

When did "Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses longing to be free..."

become anything less than that? When did in god we trust appear on our money and who rallied to put it there? The title of this thread is a fact.

 

[kai]

Not a christian nation. OK
If you look back I have quoted an article on a nation of christians does not a christian nation make... and a few other pointed by accurate observations. There are actually many people in this thread who have stated it. Indeed

Sorry you missed it. most of the thread concerned the religions of the founding fathers themselves or lack of and whatever they intended most ordinary people would consider the US christian

But the US was NOT supposed to be a CHRISTIAN nations. It was supposed to be the Land of the FREE. Ok it was supposed to be a lot of things

When did "Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses longing to be free..."

become anything less than that? more or less straight away if you were black or native american,When did in god we trust appear on our money and who rallied to put it there? The title of this thread is a fact.

Ok most of you have missed my point as usual, probably because i am such a dolt, but here it is again,

a bunch of guys sit around and create a constitution for a brand new country, its supposed to be a secular country and then they go and put in this document"in the year of our lord" when writing the date, which is plainly christian, and refers to Jesus.


Scott says OH its a legal thing about the date in any contry who's laws are based on English common law ,

Not so, they used it in France Spain Italy in fact any country that was christian.

you would not use this phrase in a muslim country and if i was setting up a secular nation i wouldnt have used it in the constitution either. I am not such a dolt as to claim this makes it christian, but it gives a little insight into the conventions of the people who wrote and signed the document.

 

[Popeyesays]

you would not use this phrase in a muslim country and if i was setting up a secular nation i wouldnt have used it in the constitution either. I am not such a dolt as to claim this makes it christian, but it gives a little insight into the conventions of the people who wrote and signed the document.

They were writing a legal document, many of them were lawyers. It would not occur to anyone writing a legal document NOT to date it.

How would you have had them date the document?

Think of it from that standpoint.

Muslims would have written: "the sercond day of Dhu'l-Qada, In the one thousand, one hudnred and niety eight years after the hejirah".

Regards,
Scott

 

[kai]

I don't think they were as sensitive to that as you seem to be. Go figure.

well they should have been ,if they intended the document to be secular, dont you think?

why write the date in a way that was particular to christians, no big deal ,ijust thought it was an oddity

 

[kai]

you would not use this phrase in a muslim country and if i was setting up a secular nation i wouldnt have used it in the constitution either. I am not such a dolt as to claim this makes it christian, but it gives a little insight into the conventions of the people who wrote and signed the document.

They were writing a legal document, many of them were lawyers. It would not occur to anyone writing a legal document NOT to date it.

How would you have had them date the document?

Think of it from that standpoint.

Muslims would have written: "In the 1200th year after the hejirah."

Regards,
Scott

Its not about the date its about the way the date is written ,imagine you were an historian in the future examining the document. if it was dated 1200th year after the hejirah , that would indeed tell you it was a muslim document.

Scott here is the date "16/06/08 the way i write it would tell you that i am not american,


if i write "in the year of our lord 2008," who do you think our lord is? the lord of the rings , screaming lord sutch? no its a particularly christian way of writing it.